Jump to content

Talk:Sky Group/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BSkyB is not a subsidiary of NewsCorp

According to the BSkyB company report (see [1]), BSkyB Holdco Inc. is a subsidiary company of News Corporation, but "Holdco" only owns 35% of British Sky Broadcasting Group. This means that British Sky Broadcasting Group plc. is itself not a subsidiary of News Corporation. Marknew 14:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's not true. A company can be purchased through a number of means, while the parent company controls less than 50% of common stock. Preferred stock is the easy way; BSkyB might have special voting rights attached to its preferred stock. Another possibility (the most likely in my opinion) is that they purchased more than 50%, absording BSkyB, and then sold stock. Also, you must understand that it is possible that 35% is an interest in which no coalition can really form to beat it in voting decisions.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 17:04, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it isn't a subsidiary. It is an associate. I have changed the article.

Sport and movies

This article needs to explain the role of the above as key drivers of Sky's business, but as I don't even have a television, I am not qualified to write about that.

Yeah right, that's what they all say to the TV Licence people LOL Smoothy 16:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

HomeChoice

BSkyB has not bought HomeChoice although it is rumoured to be considering a bid.--Barracg 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Home choice is now Tiscali t.v.

SKY around the world

The SKY TV has subsidiaries in various parts of the world.. example: www.sky.tv.br is good idea quote this?

This is not the case.

These are subsidiaries of News corp and not BskyB. When News corp brought there stake in Bskyb they started satilite tv sirvices such as Sky Itali.

Logo Images

Someone semms to have Removed or edited them nuff said 909RER 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They added them all as blank. I've removed them for now. --Dean Earley 19:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This reads like an advert, or at least glosses over the large scale criticism that it is destroying sport ... Duke toaster 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why does it say butt so much?

Probably some vandal.

Concering comments added re Virgin Media and BSkyB spat...

The 'doubted the value' comment comes from a direct mail flyer BSkyB sent out in the UK

The first few line of this read : 

"Virgin Media appears to have doubted the value of the TV you love and has dropped
Sky One,Sky news and Sky Sports News..."

and continues with the 68% claims already mentioned in the article.

The print flyer does not seem to mention the contract row (which is to be expected) ShakespeareFan00 13:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


really badly written article, virgin cant take sky to court for witholding the channels, as they decided not to pay the price sky wanted wether this was a fair price is really the issue

This piece of crap article doesn't even have a lead sentence saying what BSkyB is...

It jumps straight into financial and audience figures (not really lead material at all), doesn't even tell us that BSkyB is a broadcaster or any of it's history. WP:LEAD should anybody wish to work on it. (Pse don't tell me to fix it, I can't do everything and sometimes it's nice to just read articles... although invariably not so nice as they're generally as crap as this one or worse!) --kingboyk (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sky Logo 2004 Transparent.png

Image:Sky Logo 2004 Transparent.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed page

I am proposing a "History of Sky TV (or BSky/Sky Digital etc) idents", much like the BBC page. It would have examples of Sky's channels, corporate looks of the time etc. Your thoughts? Malpass93 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Initially, was Sky free of commercial breaks?

I vaguely recall that one of the promotional points of Sky when it was first established was that you would pay a subscription and in return they promised not to run commercial ad breaks. Is this true, and if so, when did they make the radical change of running ads? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section?

doesn't this need one? sky rape you several times. they not only make you use their own equipment and fitters. they also charge subscription, have way too much advertising and on top of that use pay per view! while at the same time they stiffle home grown programming (what little they do is done on a shoe string budget). and effectively they don't even have to pay for alot of the big shows and movies they have because they practically are fox. their news is biased and right wing. oh and they have also almost single handedly ruined english football. what i have just said barely even scrapes the surface 86.165.69.61 (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, separate criticisms sections are almost universally a bad thing. They serve as nothing more than a way to push a particular point of view. If every single one was scorched from Wikipedia, the project would be infinitely improved. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic Channel co-owned by Fox, not Sky

On the official website of National Geographic Channel UK, the FOX logo is seen at the bottom of the home page. See here: http://natgeochannel.co.uk/

Also, on the Ofcom website, the address listed is almost identical to FX.

NGC licence: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/42.htm

FX licence: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/865.htm

Kieranthompson

Technics of broadcasting

I have two questions: 1, what kind of technics British Sky Broadcasting uses broadcasting (interaktive) Sky TV? examples: VDB-T, VDB-H, wimax, 3G streaming, MBMS...? 2, How can they provide the 2 way communication? For on demand services you need back stream. (e.g. VDB-T, VDB-H are one way)

Can Anyone tell me the structure of the system? Appreciate.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.64.198 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This Needs A Constructive criticism section

As it stands there is nothing in this article in one place evaluating the good things and the bad things about BSkyB could someone do this I cannot as I do not have sufficient knowledge in the area in question thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

[Bold text] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.129.80.212 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem with WP:NOTAFORUM here, but in case anyone wants to add this to the article, the interactive services work by contacting Sky through a standard telephone line. See [2] for more details. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Old Sky logo being used?

The old logo for Sky which is coloured blue, is heading the page. The new one should be at the top, while the old one should replace the new ones place (so essentially the old logo should swap places with the new logo). Also, has anyone got a .gif of the new multicoloured logo Sky is now circulating? If you go on to Sky's website[3], you can see it briefly before the thumbnail pictures of news stories come up. If we can get this, then I think this will be a much better logo to use at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benten10X (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The logo being shown was the new one, as you replaced it with the old version, I have reverted this change. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

= sky Analog line up == from 1993

1 RTL 2

2 RTL Television

3 TV3 (Sweden)

4 Eurosport

5 Vox

6 Sat-1

7 TV-1000

8 Sky One

9 Teleclub

10 3 Sat

11 Filmnet +

12 Sky News

13 RTL 4

14 Pro 7

15 MTV Europe

16 Sky Movies

17 Premiere

18 The Movie Channel

19 ARD - Das Erste

20 Sky Sports

21 DSF

22 MTV Europe

23 UK Gold

24 JSTV

25 N3

26 Sky Movies Gold 26 TV Asia

27 TV3 (Denmark)

28 CNN International

29 n-tv

30 Cinemania

31 TV3 (Norway)

32 Documania

33 ZDF

34 UK Living

35 The Children's Channel 35 The Family Channel

36 Sogecable 3

37 TNT/Cartoon Network

38 QVC

39 West 3

40 Sogecable 4

41 Country Music TV 41 The Discovery Channel

42 Bravo 42 The Adult Channel

43 MDR

44 Galavision

45 Bayern 3

46 Nickelodeon

46 TV Asia

47 Blank

48 S3 (SWF/SDR)

sky Analog

BskyB announcement regarding channel closures

Sky announced on 15th september that they would be closing Bravo (and its sister channels) and Channel One (formerly Virgin 1) to make room for other channels after its acquisition of Virgin Media Tv (now referred to as the Living Tv Group). It was said that Challenge will fill the slot left by Channel One on free to air systems. Sky is yet to announce the exact date of closure or what will replace these channels. I just thought this should be included in the articles timeline and if reference is needed just google it, it was big news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.206.251 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Standard Sky Box

It is said in the sky timeline that the Sky+HD box is the only box that sky sell, however this is inaccurate as if you go on to the sky website and attempt to join sky you can choose which box you want and you have a choice between a Sky+ box or a Sky+HD box, the announcement that Sky made in January 2010 actually said they would only sell Sky+ boxes and that customers could upgrade to Sky+ if they so desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.206.251 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The logo used in the Infobox should undoubtably be changed to:
200px
as this is Sky's logo. The current blue one is simple this logo with a blue background placed behind. This logo is supposed to appear see through and can be seen in advertisements when difference backgrounds can be seen through it, it makes more sense to use the actual logo that one of their advertisements, if this makes sense. A similar situation can be see in Apple Inc., whereby the "glass" logo is the companies actual logo, but the black "monochrome" logo is used as part of their "minimal" advertising. Because of this, I am going to be bold and change the logo myself :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.18.185 (talk)

That logo is the previous logo, the logo currently in use on the Sky.com website is similar to the one we are using here, which are both NOT SEE-THROUGH. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The logo on their website is see through. It even has animated lights behind which to show that its see through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.18.185 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact. Here is 15 examples of there logo used on there website: ♯1 ♯2 ♯3 ♯4 ♯5 ♯6 ♯7 ♯8 ♯9 ♯10 ♯11 ♯12 ♯13 ♯14 ♯15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.18.185 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems apparent that the Sky logo changes colour while the shape remains constant. As the original logo in the article and the suggested substitution are the same logo but in different colours neither can have a claim to any particular authenticity - they are both accurate representations of Sky's logo. Since the original blue logo presently has the benefit of consensus, I think it should be used for the article. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Profits

Surely the figures in the box at the top of the page are wrong? Under finance, profit is shown as 259 million; in the box it's 5 million. Must be more than that!

Ed Long —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edlong (talk • contribs) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Use of British Isles

HighKing (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox "Owner" misleading?

In the infobox for this article, it says that News Corp owns BSkyB. Yet the body of the article (and the sources behind it, such as [4]) say that News Corp (currently - they're trying to buy the rest) only owns 39% of the shares in BSkyB. Am I missing something? — QuantumEleven 11:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

British Sky Broadcasting → BSkyB – Isn't this the common name? Marcus Qwertyus 01:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blocks

Is anyone else finding Sky is blocking websites? And if you are, should the new blocks be mentioned here? Jwikiediting (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Virgin Media

This area has a few grammatical issues:

Eventually, on 4 November 2008 it was announced that an agreement had been struck for Sky's Basic channels – including Sky1, Sky2, Sky3, Sky News, Sky Sports News, Sky Arts 1, Sky Arts 2, Sky Real Lives and Sky Real Lives 2 to return to Virgin Media from 13 November 2008 until 12 June 2011. In exchange will be provided continued carriage of Virgin Media Television's channels – Living, Livingit, Bravo, Bravo +1, Trouble, Challenge and Virgin1 for the same period.[48] Needs restructuring to make more sense

The availability (at an extra charge) of Sky's premium sport and movie services was not affected by the dispute. This impasse continued for twenty-one months, with both companies initiating High Court proceedings.[45] Amongst Virgin's claims to the court[46] (denied by Sky)[47] were that Sky had unfairly reduced the amount which it paid to VMTV for the carriage of Virgin's own channels on satellite. Makes no sense?

General notice: These sentences are too long, try shortening them or using ";" to break related sentences up in order to make it easier to read.

Jakizak (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

BSB saved Sky? Fishy

That The merger of both companies saved Sky financially sounds pretty suspicious.

According to Lord Sugar's autobiography, it's the opposite. Check the BSB Talk page for more details.

I think that sentence and any mention to this should be removed from this article until proper proof is shown.

Pgquiles (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

New details etc

Hopeful over the coming week Im hopeful to add in new details and ref, Does anyone have any thing new there can add to improve this page? --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sky (UK and Ireland)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Jasmeet_181 (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The two articles deal with one and the same company, so there is little rationale in keeping both. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I say yes. All that would need to move would be the Tech info into a new section, while the history would just go into the sky Digital part. --Crazyseiko (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Support I think the two articles would be better off together. Mark999 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Its been nearly a month and on one has rejected the idea so I will merge everything together. --Crazyseiko (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I was planning to do it next week, if no objections. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sky_Group/Archives/2013&oldid=1137189817"